Reply to Re: I gave up to the Computers National Olimpiad
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
That does not prove me wrong in any way,
Quote: "And any thought DD, even proven erroneous, has value from a philosophical standpoint. Consider the shades of grey for once."
Sorry but I disagree with that. It's irrational. Philosophy is about trying to evualate the nature of reality/existence.
You there said you disagreed to that proven erroneous thoughts have value from a philosophical standpoint. Next you say that philosophy is about trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence. Then I prove that even proven erroneous thoughts are a part of trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence, with which I prove that proven erroneous thoughts are a part of philosopy, so they have a value (which can be negative, but they still have a value), thus proving against your first statement that proven erroneous thoughts don't have value from a philosophical standpoint.
Okay since you misunderstood me, let me clarify: I meant that after they have been proved they are useless. The taking them into account to know where not to go takes place during the discrediting not after.
Also i'd like to point out that you did not include all a statement that you quoted and that a part of it proves that meant it in the above way. To prove this I will extract that part and quote it below:
How can an erroneous thought have any value except to be tell us where not to go?[i]
This is the exact same thing as you said.
[i]Firstly, I never said you ever said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Then why say That I know more uses for a number, and have need for more numbers, than you, is your ignorance, not my brain gone wrong.
? The part "not my brain gone wrong" indicates that you think I thought that.
Secondly, I never talked about a lack of use, only about you not knowing uses. I.e. lack of understanding how you can use numbers. Which is a lack of understanding, which is ignorance, by your own definition.
I was also saying that I do not have a lack of understanding, but simply disagree with the use, not only that it was not ignorance, hence that followed about my not having a use for it.
You here mean elementary algebra. As if you had actually followed the links, you had seen that, what you consider irrational complex numbers, are a part of universal algebra, and thus part of algebra, and thus part of math. It's just that all elementary algebra is part of universal algebra, but not vice versa.
I never said that they weren't a part of maths. I know that complex numbers are a part of maths. I just that they were not a logical part of maths, as quoted from the tutor of my maths paper. A illogical part of something is still a a part of it and I realise that, thus I never thought it wasn't a part of maths and always (since knowing about it) thought it was a part of maths. In short, you did not need to point out to me that it was a part of maths. Also, I did look at the links.
Quote: "And any thought DD, even proven erroneous, has value from a philosophical standpoint. Consider the shades of grey for once."
Sorry but I disagree with that. It's irrational. Philosophy is about trying to evualate the nature of reality/existence.
You there said you disagreed to that proven erroneous thoughts have value from a philosophical standpoint. Next you say that philosophy is about trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence. Then I prove that even proven erroneous thoughts are a part of trying to evaluate the nature of reality/existence, with which I prove that proven erroneous thoughts are a part of philosopy, so they have a value (which can be negative, but they still have a value), thus proving against your first statement that proven erroneous thoughts don't have value from a philosophical standpoint.
Okay since you misunderstood me, let me clarify: I meant that after they have been proved they are useless. The taking them into account to know where not to go takes place during the discrediting not after.
Also i'd like to point out that you did not include all a statement that you quoted and that a part of it proves that meant it in the above way. To prove this I will extract that part and quote it below:
How can an erroneous thought have any value except to be tell us where not to go?[i]
This is the exact same thing as you said.
[i]Firstly, I never said you ever said there was anything wrong with the brain of anyone here.
Then why say That I know more uses for a number, and have need for more numbers, than you, is your ignorance, not my brain gone wrong.
? The part "not my brain gone wrong" indicates that you think I thought that.
Secondly, I never talked about a lack of use, only about you not knowing uses. I.e. lack of understanding how you can use numbers. Which is a lack of understanding, which is ignorance, by your own definition.
I was also saying that I do not have a lack of understanding, but simply disagree with the use, not only that it was not ignorance, hence that followed about my not having a use for it.
You here mean elementary algebra. As if you had actually followed the links, you had seen that, what you consider irrational complex numbers, are a part of universal algebra, and thus part of algebra, and thus part of math. It's just that all elementary algebra is part of universal algebra, but not vice versa.
I never said that they weren't a part of maths. I know that complex numbers are a part of maths. I just that they were not a logical part of maths, as quoted from the tutor of my maths paper. A illogical part of something is still a a part of it and I realise that, thus I never thought it wasn't a part of maths and always (since knowing about it) thought it was a part of maths. In short, you did not need to point out to me that it was a part of maths. Also, I did look at the links.
